This chapter is above all a critical contribution to the discussion
which has begun in Germany about the legitimacy of radical historical criticism
in the framework of academic theology and the church. But it may also be
of interest to English readers, since in the Anglo-Saxon world, too,
the question of the relationship between history, faith, church and theology
has still not been clarified.

1. Never has so much importance been attached to theological education
-- and never has the Word of God been so lacking in savour, power and fruit
as now. The reason for this does not lie with the preachers, who are in
the service of the church and are dependent on their employers; for the
most part they are men and women of good will. The real reason is the untenability
of the supposition that the ‘Word of God' is preached from the pulpit at
all.

2. The church which bases itself on the Word of God has built on sand.
This follows, first, from the history of the canon, i.e. from the human
way in which the collection that makes up the Bible, consisting of Old
and New Testaments, came into being. Secondly, talk of the Bible as Word
of God has become obsolete as a result of the way in which the dogma of
inspiration has been taken off its hinges by historical criticism. Thirdly,
the unity of the earthly and risen Jesus, which represents an important
basis for the notion of the Bible as Word of God, is outdated because the
resurrection appearances to his disciples are to be derived from visions
which can be explained in purely psychological terms and which can be understood
as interpretations of the life of Jesus.

3. The churches should take a creative break, and dispense with preaching
the ‘Word of God' for at least ten years. Think of all the things that
are preached about! If everything preached up and down the country is God's
Word, then how are we to explain its almost complete lack of effectiveness?

4. As in all spheres of life, so too in religion, the consequences of
this knowledge must be drawn, and if necessary that must lead to its complete
transformation. That applies above all to the historical evidence that
Jesus decayed and did not rise bodily. For the church, the physical resurrection
is nevertheless still an indispensable requisite, so that we can say with
Christoph Türcke that the skeleton in the closet of the church is
the risen Son of God.

5. Theology and church must be liberated from their entanglements with
each other -- for the good of theology and for the good of the church.
Theology cannot be done as church theology, but only as free, scholarly
theology. Only then is it in a position to make its contribution to the
demystification of the world. The church is not just based on rationality,
but primarily on a religious community experience which takes place at
the grass roots. Singing and celebrating has priority there. Only this
makes possible the necessary communication with other churches of the ecumene.
The church must become more aware of itself; it can make decisions on the
basis of its practice and need not artificially resort to theological formulae
to demonstrate its orthodoxy.

6. The claim to privileged knowledge is the besetting evil of the theology
of both confessions and both churches. This has contributed to their lack
of credibility and their speechlessness in dealing with outsiders -- who
are in the majority. Anyone who refers here to revelation is simply doing
what the present-day sects also practise.

7. Protestant theology owes its reputation and its right to exist within
German universities to the ruthless application of historical criticism.
Along with many other contemporaries who engaged in historical criticism,
a scholar like Adolf von Harnack, who as a culture Protestant and a liberal
theologian is no longer taken seriously, did more for the ongoing existence
of theological faculties in a secular state (cf. von Harnack 1923) than
those in today's church who despise him and his like suspect.

8. Theology and the church will have a right to exist in the future
only if they offer the public what is required of them in modern society.
Within the framework of a demonstration of the need for them, the historical
truth of the statements that they confess in the creed must be tested,
and if the result is negative these statements must be firmly dropped.
There is no necessity for theology and the church to exist. Theology must
again link up with the great historical, philological and philosophical
achievements of liberal theology.

9. If theology is to be recognized as an academic discipline there must
be an end to its confessionalizing. That should be easier to achieve in
Protestantism than in Roman Catholicism. Furthermore this demand needs
to be made not only for organizational and economic reasons, but also for
political reasons, since our state is confessionally neutral. In the new
theological faculty there should be research into all religions including
the Christian religion. Though theology and the church actually exist,
they do not necessarily have to. All of them should be put to the critical
test. Practical training of clergy is a matter for the Christian churches
and the other religious communities, and not for the universities.

10. Theology and the church often live on the fact that no one takes
them seriously any more. This alone ensures their survival in times which
are politically relatively stable, and this survival is secured in law
by partisan agreements between state and church. But we should not fool
ourselves: for many thinking people and today's culture, the church and
theology are no longer a challenge. They lead a life of their own, often
dig themselves in against unpleasant criticism, and thus stiffen into death
in apparent splendour.

11. The church is called on to hear Jesus' voice for better or worse
in his authentic words. This includes a readiness to distinguish ruthlessly
what Jesus really said from what he did not say, and to question one's
own tradition in the light of the authentic sayings of Jesus. Here a living
memory is more than mere repetition of the words of Jesus.

12. If I am not repudiated by historical evidence or a clear reason,
I am compelled by the historical facts that I have cited to maintain my
protest against the hypocrisy of the Protestant Church, its confessions
which are still pronounced today, and the actions of its officers which
are grounded on the ‘Word of God'.